Modelling and Simulating Extreme Opinion Diffusion

  • Enzo Battistella
  • Laurence CholvyEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11352)


This paper focuses on modelling and simulating diffusion of extreme opinions among agents. In this work, opinions are modelled as formulas of the propositional logic. Moreover, agents influence each other and any agent changes its current opinion by merging the opinions of its influencers, taking into account the strength of their influence. We propose several definitions of extreme opinions and extremism. Formal studies of these definitions are made as well as some simulations.


  1. 1.
    Crawford, C., Brooks, L., Sen, S.: Opposites repel: the effect of incorporating repulsion on opinion dynamics in the bounded confidence model. In: International Conference on Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, AAMAS 2013, Saint Paul, MN, USA, 6–10 May 2013, vol. 6–10, pp. 1225–1226 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Christoff, Z., Hansen, J.U.: A logic for diffusion in social networks. J. Appl. Logic 13, 48–77 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cholvy, L.: Diffusion of opinion and influence. In: Schockaert, S., Senellart, P. (eds.) SUM 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9858, pp. 112–125. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grandi, U., Lorini, E., Perrussel, L.: Propositional opinion diffusion. In: Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2015, Istanbul, Turkey, 4–8 May 2015, pp. 989–997 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hafızoğlu, F.M., Sen, S.: Analysis of opinion spread through migration and adoption in agent communities. In: Rahwan, I., Wobcke, W., Sen, S., Sugawara, T. (eds.) PRIMA 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7455, pp. 153–167. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jager, W., Amblard, F.: A dynamical perspective on attitude change. In: Proceedings of NAACSOS (North American Association for Computational Social and Organizational Science) Conference, Pittsburgh, USA, 22–25 June 2004Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tsang, A., Larson, K.: Opinion dynamics of skeptical agents. In: International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, AAMAS 2014, Paris, France, 5–9 May 2014, pp. 277–284 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Christoff, Z., Grossi, D.: Stability in binary opinion diffusion. In: Baltag, A., Seligman, J., Yamada, T. (eds.) LORI 2017. LNCS, vol. 10455, pp. 166–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2017). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chau, H., Wong, C., Chow, F., Fung, C.: Social judgment theory based model on opinion formation, polarization and evolution. Physica A 415, 133–140 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deffuant, G., Amblard, F., Weisbuch, G., Faure, T.: How can extremism prevail? A study based on the relative agreement interaction model. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 5 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sureda, C., Gaudou, B., Amblard, F.: An agent-based simulation of extremist network formation through radical behavior diffusion. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1, pp. 236–243. ICAART, INSTICC, ScitePress (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwind, N., Inoue, K., Bourgne, G., Konieczny, S., Marquis, P.: Belief revision games. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Austin, Texas, USA, 25–30 January 2015, pp. 1590–1596 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cholvy, L.: Opinion diffusion and influence: a logical approach. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 93, 24–39 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Battistella, E., Cholvy, L.: A logical approach to extreme opinion diffusion. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, pp. 17–28. ICAART, SciTePress (2018)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eiter, T., Mannila, H.: Distance measures for point sets and their computation. Acta Inf. 34, 109–133 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hunter, A., Konieczny, S.: On the measure of conflicts: shapley inconsistency values. Artif. Intell. 174, 1007–1026 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grant, J., Hunter, A.: Analysing inconsistent information using distance-based measures. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 89, 3–26 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xiao, G., Ma, Y.: Inconsistency measurement based on variables in minimal unsatisfiable subsets. In: 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Including Prestigious Applications of Artificial Intelligence (PAIS-2012) System Demonstrations Track, ECAI 2012, Montpellier, France, 27–31 August 2012, pp. 864–869 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Easley, D.A., Kleinberg, J.M.: Networks, Crowds, and Markets - Reasoning About a Highly Connected World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Milgram, S.: The small world problem. Psychol. Today 2, 60–67 (1967)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Prettejohn, B.J., Berryman, M.J., McDonnell, M.D.: Methods for generating complex networks with selected structural properties for simulations: a review and tutorial for neuroscientists. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 5, 11 (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Watts, D.J., Strogatz, S.H.: Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks. Nature 393, 440–442 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Watts, D.J.: Networks, dynamics, and the small-world phenomenon. Am. J. Sociol. 105, 493–527 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Konieczny, S., Pérez, R.P.: Merging information under constraints: a logical framework. J. Log. Comput. 12, 773–808 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ONERAToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations